Caner Not Only Ex-Muslim With Dubious Past: An "Industry" To Make Money on Christians?

Perhaps there are other supposed self-proclaimed "ex-terrorist Mulsims" who have written books about Islam and been on the speaking cirucuit, seeking a market for their testimony and books amongst the vast sea of gullible Christians.

Sacirbey points out that Ergun Caner himself claims to have a terrorist past - he provides a quote from Caner's November 2001 sermon at FBC Jax where Caner claimed to have been in "Islamic Youth Jihad", and "trained to do that which was done on 11 September." As I have maintained since releasing the Caner FBC Jax 2001 sermon on this blog earlier this year, these quotes are the most damning for Caner - showing him, in my opinion, to be an opportunist going so far as to falsely portray himself as an ex-terrorist right after 9/11 as his mentor Jerry Vines sat right behind him.

But he might not be the only one, as Sacirbey points out. The other supposed ex-terrorists are:

- Walid Shoebat - author of "Why We Want to Kill You", claims he was recruited by the PLO as a teenager. According to Sacirbey, Shoebat describes a bomb-throwing incident he was involved in, but turns out there is no proof of it according to Sacirbey's article. Here is a link to Shoebat's website.

- Kamal Saleem - claims to have carried out terrorist attacks in Israel, and to have moved to America to wage Jihad against America (sound familiar?). Here is a link to his website with his story.

Says Sacirbey in his article:

"Skeptics point out that Shoebat and Saleem claim to have carried out their terrorist activities in the 1960s and 1970s, long before modern Islamic radicalism emerged in the 1980s. They also question why, if their terror claims are true, they've been able to retain their U.S. citizenship."

Exactly. If Ergun Caner was "trained to do that which was done on 11 September" did the U.S. government fully investigate his supposed terrorist background after he made these remarks in November 2001 at FBC Jax? Was he really trained in terrorism? Is he an expert in Jihad? If not, why was he invited to speak to the U.S. troops on such a topic? Are Shoebat and Saleem really ex-terrorists? If Shoebat and Saleem and Caner are trained ex-terrorists, why are they U.S. citizens? Can any ex-terrorist "accept Jesus" and then they are deemed non-threats?

Read this quote from Sacirbey's article:

Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said Caner, Shoebat, Saleem and others like them belong to an "industry" that is often perpetuated by fundamentalist Christians. "The people that are doing this do it to make money, or get converts, or to get some personal benefit," Hooper said.

And then this quote:

"Despite the evidence against them, Hooper believes these people will continue to be welcomed by some institutions because they preach what some audiences want to hear. 'As long as you attack Islam and demonize Muslims, you're going to get a platform,' he said. 'It doesn't matter if your facts and background are wrong.' "

Which is worse to you...doing a blog like this or lying about ANYTHING in the pulpit? Yet, Watchdog and his entire family are banned from FBC Jax. When will be the next time Ergun Caner will be in the pulpit there? It won't be long, I bet. You all do realize, they aren't going to do one thing to him... right? I mean, he's still speaking all over, and nobody even seems to care. There are a lot of other people been made to feel unwelcome in the Southern Baptist church. Yet, the Caners and those like them just keep on raking in the cash and being welcomed in their churches. Go figure.

And some of us, week after week, just don't go to church anymore. Or have been BANNED. Its only in the end the true damage will be seen.

I read in this book about a woman who left the Mormon church that in the center of all religions is God, the Light, whatever you call it. Then man comes in and blocks the path. And I swear, when there's money to be made, some people will do anything. And then act like the ones who question are at fault. What a manipulation.

On one hand, the article troubles me because I distrust anything coming out of Mr. Hooper's mouth. Many are well-versed on the Caner untruths and exaggerations, but I don't want that obvious conclusion to spread to the other names mentioned.

If the article's thesis is that Christians generally and initially trust what is being told them from the pulpit and from popular speakers endorsed by Christian leaders, then... that's obvious.

But the article seems to suggest that these people are playing off wild caricatures of Muslims to play to Christian fears. And while there may be some truth to that, I believe it is a DEFENSIBLE POSITION that there is a significant threat to peace from radical Islam. And that radical Islam is far stronger than other violent sub-groups in religions, especially given their power in the governance of some nations.

The article was interesting in that it again brought to light Mr. Caner's 2001 claims, which no one is apparently defending. My guess is they're all hoping for them to go away over time. Ankerberg, Geisler, etc. won't even engage the question: "Was what Mr. Caner said in his 2001 sermon true or false?"

Or: "Would you agree that claiming to be a trained terrorist in the USA to attack Americans is not the same as a small error in recollection in a sermon, such as remembering exact dates, mistelling small anecdotes, or even accidentally using an urban myth from the pulpit?"

One word answers to each of the above would suffice, they're not trick questions. Instead we get reams of distraction.

I'd love to see this substantiated. I have only seen this issue raised once, and it was by a Caner defender, who immediately suggested that Caner was being paid in "love offerings" at local churches, and so therefore couldn't seriously be accused of profiting from fraud.

Anonymous wrote,"But the article seems to suggest that these people are playing off wild caricatures of Muslims to play to Christian fears. And while there may be some truth to that, I believe it is a DEFENSIBLE POSITION that there is a significant threat to peace from radical Islam."

Anonymous, no one can deny radical Islam presents a threat to our national security. But what bothered me in the Focus on the Family re-broadcast of Ergun Caner's testimony from Prestonwood, which is when I got drawn into the Ergan Caner scandal, is the presentation that Bin Laden's views are not only shared by a sub-set of his fellow Muslims, but are mainstream, indeed are not only mainstream but are not even controversial, that all Muslims accept these things without question. He makes it sound like all Muslims are dangerous all the time, and cannot be 'defused' except through conversion. But this is not factual. Policy should not be based on fantasy.

This is almost an epidemic. If they found two more then how many more? Lydia has a good point in that will affect those who are ministering to the Muslims. I am hoping however that God is bringing about a cleaning of his church.

The one thing bringing out this story on Ergun has done, it's made us more discerning. We need to preach the Bible. We need to seek God. We have gone the way of the celebrity and it has bitten us. It has also made some who are in celebrity status and who are genuine rethink if this is really where God wants them to be. Out of bad God always brings about good.

That has never been denied Fredericka. There are both. Radical(being the key word) Muslims and peaceful Muslims. To broad brush and play to fears is the same thing that made the Left Behind books so popular, the playing of caricatures. We are either people of the truth or we are not. This could also have a dangerous affect on Muslims too. In fact it has. Prejudice is just as dangerous as Radical Muslims. The same damage is done.

In the time of Jesus, the Roman empire was cruel.They worshipped false Gods and persecuted those who refused to worship in similar fashion.

The Scriptures do not seem to be filled with absolute horror and fear of the Romans and their incursions. In fact, such persecution was to be looked at through God's eyes. "Do not fear when men persecute and revile you".

The Christians of Biblical times looked at persecution as an opportunity to reach others for the Gospel. It seems to me that we Christians in America exhibit fear a lot more often than the hope of opportunity.

Please don't get me wrong. I would not want radical Muslims to "take over" our country. But, I would like to see more depth to our reactions.

One of my pastors made a great observation. He asked us if we thought the God was bringing Muslims and people of other faiths to the USA because we have not obeyed God in bringing the Gospel to some of these people groups. So God is bringing them to our back door.

Islamic terror started with Muhammad. And the modern drive did start in the 60's against the West and before that against the Jews (20's-on). So I would caution much beyond Caner. Understanding Taqiyya is key in this discussion:

So know that while we are right to ask the questions... know also that many on the fundamentalist Islamic persons see the world not as "right" or "wrong;" or, what is "moral" or "immoral." But as Islamic and non-Islamic.

"Please don't get me wrong. I would not want radical Muslims to "take over" our country. But, I would like to see more depth to our reactions"

Papa is right:

"So know that while we are right to ask the questions... know also that many on the fundamentalist Islamic persons see the world not as "right" or "wrong;" or, what is "moral" or "immoral." But as Islamic and non-Islamic."

And this belief means that even moderate type Muslims get caught up in what is "non-Islamic" like what we saw happen in Dearborn. Where are the Muslims upset about free speech being violated? No, the "moderates" were yelling Allah Akbar in agreement with the arrests of Christians at a public Arab Festival.

Before we go off defending Muslims in the US, let us ask ourselves if we are willing to have a segment of our population that has no choices BECAUSE of 'freedom of religion"...they will have little freedom. I am speaking of Muslim women.

Does anyone not see that Islamic beliefs and our constitution are diametrically opposed?

We see in Dearborn, even our police, used strong arm methods to stop free speech. Are we really willing to go along with this in the name of a false "peace"? Where will it stop?

People need to read more history and see how this stuff starts. A little here and there. Many will accuse me of being a warmonger or hateful. I am in good company with guys like Winston Churchill who saw what was happening long before it was too late.

Lydia and others: You might not want to take David Wood as your only source of information about the Arab Festival. He notes he was asked to stop distributing the gospel of John outside the festival on Sunday but he leads people to believe it was due to the content--i.e., the police are prejudiced against Christians and Christian literature. The truth is that there was a five-block "buffer zone" around the festival in which ANY (as in "content neutral") literature distribution was banned. (With one exception--George Saieg got a Temporary Restraining Order to hand out literature for those three days.) David Wood is not telling you that tiny, little, inconvenient fact.

As for the Friday incident, since we don't have any video prior to David and the others' arrests, we don't know what we were doing. The "testimonies" presented by David Wood are incomplete (one person states she had walked away and then saw the four being led off by the cops). It's entirely possible the police overstepped their bounds, but we don't know. It sure would be nice to have the video....

Am I supposed to believe that a buffer zone was created to prevent literature distribution because people who attended the Arab Festival were bothered by coupons and ads for window tinting?

No matter how it may have been artfully written, it sure seems to this observer that the regulation itself was initiated to target religious expression.

So any appeal to such a regulation isn't going to win much sympathy for those who celebrate the arrest of a proselytizing Christian.

So -- to one of the points on the post. I believe those who speak before Christians and teach that Muslims oppose Christianity to the point of restricting its practice and expression with laws and enforcement are not taking advantage of gullible Christians, but raising a real concern for the global church.

This is hardly an insignificant offshoot of Islam like some small Christian radical group or perhaps a separatist group within another religion. There are whole countries under Islamic law that restrict the practice and expression of Christianity in various ways, some with newsworthy oppression.

I'm not advocating fear-mongering. God is Sovereign in what he allows for His Glory and our good.

The fact that David Wood left out an important detail should immediately make him suspect as a possible 'hatemonger'.

One key difference between hatemongers and Christians is that hatemongers believe that the 'end justifies the means' and they will, without conscience, bend and mutilate the truth to serve their purposes, something a Christian cannot do in good conscience.

"Lydia and others: You might not want to take David Wood as your only source of information about the Arab Festival. "

Until I see video of them passing out literature and proof of the buffer zone, I will believe Wood and not what a Muslim says. It is not considered a virtue for Christians to lie to unbelievers. Which is one reason many of us are so upset about Caner.

I personally think Muslims were upset and therefore chanting Allah Akbar when they were handcuffed because 2 of the Christian witnesses involved ARE real former Muslims.

The ONLY person allowed to distribute literature last weekend in the "buffer zone" was George Saieg. Nobody else.

As for the rest of it, I've gotten to the point where the irrational prejudice against Muslims is such that it's not even worth the electrons to try and show people that there are such things as "time, place, and manner restrictions" and "content-neutral" rules and regulations--and these are constitutional. You wouldn't believe them if I showed them to you, because of the prejudice. I've had it with trying to use the very expensive legal education I got back in the 1980s to demonstrate that the story David Wood is telling is not the entire truth.

You're being taken for a ride and at this point I'm not going to try and stop you.

No offense intended, but if you don't understand what the doctrine of Taqiyya is then you probably shouldn't talk about it. By showing your ignorance of the subject, you'll only turn Muslims off discussions of Christianity.

Taqiyya is only allowable in Shia strains of Islam and all of the "ex-muslims" being discussed are from almost exclusively Sunni countries. Just sayin'.

First of all, thank you for your polite insights. I will be polite and end with that I disagree with you about this. To others here who do not know the debate being brought up right now, here is a bit on it:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2007/03/taqiyya-about-taqiyya.html

The Qu'ran teaches it, the Haditha (I personally own a "Bukhari Haditha") exemplifies it -- Muhammad practiced it and commanded certain followers to do it as well.

Lydia: Again I believe you and Papa are going overboard. The fact is that they are here and we have always had others of different faiths. As Christians are we to fear anything? Or is our only mission to give the Gospel. I am not going to live my life in fear of anything. I am going to live my life. They are here, instead of being afraid let's show them Christ. I personally could care less if one is a Radical muslim or not. Both need Christ. Both need love, both need the Gospel.

"As for the rest of it, I've gotten to the point where the irrational prejudice against Muslims is such that it's not even worth the electrons to try and show people that there are such things as "time, place, and manner restrictions" and "content-neutral" rules and regulations--and these are constitutional. You wouldn't believe them if I showed them to you, because of the prejudice"

Those were not Mormons flying planes into the towers, Mirele. And Shabazz was not a Jehovah Witness. My talk about time place and manner restrictions!

Tell me, why the chanting Allah Akbar when the Christians were arrested at the public ARAB Festival? Why the glee and delight?

"I'd love to see this substantiated. I have only seen this issue raised once, and it was by a Caner defender, who immediately suggested that Caner was being paid in "love offerings" at local churches, and so therefore couldn't seriously be accused of profiting from fraud."

I can't provide a ledger or any hard evidence of Dr. Caner's income from his speaking engagements, but consider the following fact:

Most church speakers of national significance who are published and widely read generally travel "expenses paid". In other words the church or group hosting the even pays for the air fare, hotel, meals, etc. In fact, really saavy speakers put this requirement into their speaking request form or contract. Therefore any offering collected goes straight into the pocket of the speaker.

In churches where attendance tops 2000 (where Dr. Caner often speaks) this offering can exceed $10,000. Ten grand just for speaking 45 minutes! In most cases these speakers will carry 4-5 "stump" sermons which may include a sermon about their personal testimony and 3-4 about critical current issues. These sermons are practically memorized and require only modest revisions over time.

Am I saying it is fraudulent to get paid this much for preaching? Certainly not! But when your sermons are predicated on your past an Islamic Jihad trainee which is not factual....well I will let you be the judge.

Should I think that all Christians are anti-abortion terrorists bases on the actions of people like James Kopp, Scott Roeder, Eric Rudolph, Michael Griffin, Paul Hill or John Salvi--all of whom killed doctors and others associated with abortion clinics as part of their terrorist campaign against legal abortion?

Why no, I should not. But you seem to have no problem doing the same towards Muslims. Frankly, your actions are irrational and the danger you pose is that other people might listen to you and believe you.

I want to make clear that I am not underplaying terrorism, not by any stretch of the imagination. But I know the effects of corrosive beliefs like yours--on Sept. 15, 2001, a guy named Balbir Sodhi Singh was murdered here in my city, Mesa, Arizona, in cold blood by a deranged idiot who thought that anyone who wore a turban was a Muslim and deserved to die. Singh was a member of the Sikh religion.

That's what nonsense like yours leads to and it's way past time for you and those who think like you to realize this.

Lucas - I have heard from multiple sources that the speaking fee for a mega church, when they bring in a big name speaker to replace the "senior pastor" who is away on vacation or one of his own speaking gigs, is somewhere around $5k, and $10k wouldn't surprise me at all. I've heard that big name musicians around the SBC (won't mention any names) charge a boatload of money to come in for a service to be the "special music".

Which is why I like to bring up Muhammad in comparison with Christ. One of my favorite quotes from a scholar is this:

The nine founders among the eleven living religions in the world had characters which attracted many devoted followers during their own lifetime, and still larger numbers during the centuries of subsequent history. They were humble in certain respects, yet they were also confident of a great re¬ligious mission. Two of the nine, Mahavira and Buddha, were men so strongminded and self-reliant that, according to the records, they displayed no need of any divine help, though they both taught the inexorable cosmic law of Karma. They are not reported as having possessed any consciousness of a supreme personal deity. Yet they have been strangely deified by their followers. Indeed, they themselves have been wor¬shipped, even with multitudinous idols.

All of the nine founders of religion, with the exception of Jesus Christ, are reported in their respective sacred scriptures as having passed through a preliminary period of uncertainty, or of searching for religious light. Confucius, late in life, confessed his own sense of shortcomings and his desire for further improvement in knowledge and character. All the founders of the non-Christian religions evinced inconsistencies in their personal character; some of them altered their prac¬tical policies under change of circumstances.

Jesus Christ alone is reported as having had a consistent God consciousness, a consistent character himself, and a con¬sistent program for his religion. The most remarkable and valuable aspect of the personality of Jesus Christ is the com¬prehensiveness and universal availability of his character, as well as its own loftiness, consistency, and sinlessness.

There are other comments that can be made, but I will choose Eric Rudolph as an example. Eric Rudolph was involved in Christian Identity, a movement that all mainstream Christians reject as a heresy and cult. In other words, you do not find in "Christian havens" around the world people dancing in the streets and passing out candy when two of the largest building collapse. What you find is a rejection of the killing of persons, period.

Even Idaho State University sociologist James A. Aho agrees with me -- as one example: "I would prefer to say that Rudolph is a religiously inspired terrorist, because most mainstream Christians consider Christian Identity to be a heresy." (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/juneweb-only/6-2-22.0.html)

He would be right. A conservative estimate is that 10% of the Muslim world believe an extreme form of their faith. (I would argue that Muhammad believed in this form of the faith, thusly, anyone who follows him devolves into this thinking in some way. At least separating the world into Muslim and non-Muslim factions, instead of moral categories. The numbers of Islamic reformers I think equal the number of Christian terrorists - so-called.) That means 100-million Muslims want to kill me (to put it in blunt terms). Do 100-million Christians want to kill you?

The fact that almost all of the bombers rejected mainstream Christianity in some way is important and it drove one commentator to say that he is "not aware of any who were Christian with the possible exception of the New Life shooter, Matt Murray, who rejected his faith and seems to have seen his rampage as an act of revenge" (http://www.verumserum.com/?p=14971). And Gary Bauer makes mention that:

"Nor will he find any theological leader of any branch of Christianity willing to defend his criminal conduct. No Christian neighborhoods burst into celebration at the news of the bombings. Nor are Christian children being taught that if Rudolph had died in his attacks he would be a 'martyr' welcomed into heaven. The contrast with radical Islamic teachings couldn't be more stark."

But all that aside, I look ultimately to Jesus. And if it comes to Jesus vs. Muhammad, I will stick with Jesus since even the Qu'ran says he was sinless and the Qu'ran shows Muhammad asking allah for forgiveness for his misdeeds. (I can argue the meaning of the words from the Arabic words in this particular matter, but I do not wish to go that in-depth here.)

This is invented, prefab, unsubstantiated rumors that do nothing but make Satan double over in laughter.

2 key points Dog..

1. No one makes these Churches pony up money to these speakers. They choose to...this is not the Soviet Union.

2. Why not do an expose' on Deacons running off Pastors and the fact that the VAST majority of Pastors make less than 30,000 a year. This whole "mega-church" mania that you are caught up in is 1% of all Churches.

Where have you been hanging out to get all this info? It seems as though all this scratching you are doing is an indication that you have had a bad infestation of FLEAS!

anonymous: There is no naiivity on my part. I've just lived through a lot of "scares." I still remember the same thing being said of communists taking over the country, I participated in the duck and cover in grade school. I went through years of the VietNam War and history itself shows that while these things do occur, I live an hour and a half from the OKC bombing. There first suspect was a Muslim terrorist. Guess what? It turned out to be an American. I live in a city where I deal with Muslims as a part of daily living. They are peaceful, kind, people who do not condone what Radicals are doing. There are radical people everywhere even in Christianity and prejudices is everywhere and is just as dangerous as Muslim terrorists. I also live 2 hours from the former KKK headquarters. I remember Y2K and a host of other hide ourselves in a corner, which I did not. I do not plan on doing it now. I will however pray for Muslims, love them, grateful that I have one for a friend even though we live in very different countries and are very far apart. That will not change. That's reality, not being naive. I've lived long enough to be discerning.

For the sake of the matter in Dearborn, we don't need to reference the serious issue of Islamic Terrorism. We can simply rely on the obvious fact that Islam writ large appears hostile to free expression of contrary religious ideas.

The simplest illustration beyond the glee shown by the crowd at the Christian's arrest in Dearborn is how countries governed by Fundamentalist/Radical Muslims restrict Christian witness -- often in severe and frightening ways.

This is not exclusive to countries governed by Muslims, of course. Communist governed countries are also notoriously poor in this regard.

So, this should again explain why most observers will take the default position that the organizers of this event in Dearborn sought to suppress Christian expression. Its not as if squelching Christian expression is somehow incoherent with what we see as the standard practice of Muslims in power.

If I was a betting woman (which I am not) I would see you a highly-inappropriate t-shirt and raise you a boatload of highly inappropriate comments that were uttered by members of the so-called "pro-life" community (many of whom also call themselves "Christian") after George Tiller was gunned down in cold blood at his church last year.

My point is that every religion has people in it that do not reflect well on the religion as a whole.

*Your* problem, as I see it, is that you and so many others like you assume that *every* Muslim has the potential lurking inside to become a murderous thug. There's absolutely no reasoning with people who think like that.

As for your "celebration" canard, I'm just shaking my head. I hear this, but I have seen no proof. You are aware, of course, that Muslims died in the WTC, no?

And, as for this:

With your expensive legal education, why would you want to be a piece of chattel?

This made me laugh.

One of the things I learned in law school was that up until about 1890, married women had no separate legal existence from their husbands. In short, they were chattel. (In fact, if you go back and read some of the early American feminists and suffragists, who got their start as slavery abolitionists, you'll see that they quickly came to the conclusion that their legal status was just as abysmal as slaves.)

After 1890, there was a legal revolution in the USA, as the Christian religious beliefs of the "two becoming as one" and the "man being the head of the household" combined to make married men legally responsible for the torts of their wives. So, for example, if Sally took the horseless carriage and ran it into a neighbor's house, under the legal doctrine that married women had no separate legal existence, Sally's husband Jake would be responsible for the damages resulting from the incident.

The result was that married women were given separate legal status so as to protect the property of the husband. (I still remember how seriously disappointed I was to learn these laws weren't passed because it was the right thing to do, but to save male assets.)

Come home to Jesus Christ. Freedom from bondage is waiting for you.

I could no longer be a Christian when I realized I could not worship Jesus as God in good conscience. I respect Christians and there are some aspects of Christianity I really like. However, after the realization I had, it would be fundamentally dishonest for me to bow down to worship another human being as God.

I don't think you can understand how earth-shattering it was to come to that conclusion; after all, I'd prayed and praised and worshipped Jesus for over three decades of my life as the most important person ever and then.... I had to learn to rethink who I was asking for help in my life--that's pretty fundamental.

"*Your* problem, as I see it, is that you and so many others like you assume that *every* Muslim has the potential lurking inside to become a murderous thug. There's absolutely no reasoning with people who think like that."

So then, you do not take your own scriptures seriously?

There is no "New Covenant" with Mohammad so please do not quote the OT back to me. Mo is advocating violence to those who do not convert. Some Muslims do ignore this but it is there.

I do not follow the OT. I am under a New Covenant with Jesus Christ.

Your tactics are quite clever. Note the constant focus on how "reasonable" you are but we are not.

Your US History lesson is incomplete. We changed it. Why would we do that?

Let us talk about the freedoms of women in Muslim countries.

So, I am curious that you think you have found FREEDOM as a WOMAN under Islam. Seriously? You call that reasonable and educated?

Exactly. If we should have learned one thing from History and from the more recent Islamic terror is that bullies become more bold with cowards or those they think they can manipulate. They will demand toleration and point to a few a non Muslim bad apples to paint with a broad brush. Hoping our guilt will keep us from seeing truth.

I would recommend that folks become very educated about the problems inherent with Islam. Not only about what the Koran and Hadith teach but also the connections to terror funding in the US and how "moderate" Muslims actually help and support the Terrorists.

Remember, they are intolerant themselves but demand toleration from non Muslims. It is considered a virtue to deceive and lie to infidels.

How many more Shabazz's are in the US? And how do we protect innocent people from them and not violate individual rights? That is a question we must ask ourselves.

Keep in mind the thinking. Mirele actually thinks she has more freedom as a Muslim woman! And she claims to be educated.

Check out Robert Spencer's Jihad Watch. David Horowitz, Front Page Magazine. This is not hatemongering as Debbie and others want to make you believe. It is being aware of what is going on.

You're inviting me to Christianity (aka "accept Jesus as my personal savior"), yet you're also mocking me, questioning my education and insulting my intelligence and then recommending regularly discredited sources like Robert Spencer and David Horowitz. Funny way of calling to Jesus, this. It's like the aggropreaching that David Wood, etc., engage in. Insult and belittle people and they might accept your savior. Why on earth do you think I'd want to be like you?

This is not the place or the time to go into a dissertation on why Christians shouldn't be throwing stones at Muslims over women's rights. Let's just say that the record is not very pretty.

I respect people like Debbie because she holds tenaciously to the central core of her beliefs--but she is not afraid to look at facts, even if they come from people who do not share her beliefs.

And, to drag this more or less back on topic: In this whole Ergun Caner mess, that's been the most astonishing thing to me. It doesn't matter what the facts are, it doesn't matter that Ergun Caner misrepresented himself over the years, it's that these facts were brought out first by a Muslim and for that very reason alone must be untrue or can't be looked at. I find that kind of thinking astonishing. A close runner-up is the sentiment: "Well he's bringing so many people to Christ, so it doesn't matter what he says." (Right.) If it doesn't really matter what the truth is, then we might as well have actors up in the pulpit, not ministers of the Gospel. Wait a minute....

Mirele: This is indeed very sad. It would appear that you were never a "saved" believer to start with. In other words never really a true Christian. Of course only God truly knows your heart. But, my bible tells me that there are some who have a form of godliness. (2Timothy 3: vs. 5 & 7,),vs. 5: "Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away". In your case we have....vs,. 7: "Ever learning,and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth".

It appears you have put your "faith" in mans knowledge (legal profession) not Gods knowledge. Jesus said: "I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man cometh unto the Father, but by me".

Hebrews 6:vs.4-6: :vs.4: "For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, vs.5: And have tasted the food word of God, and the powers of the world to come, vs.6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put Him to an open shame". This would apply to those who "professed" to believe, but had never truly accepted Jesus Christ as Savior in their heart. This is from Gods word,not mans.

If people would study their bibles more I mean actually study what JESUS says, and stop listening to man, then they would actually KNOW what Gods word says. Anything outside of Jesus is of mans making. Men always get sidetracked by things, people and circumstances. Keep your eye on the CROSS, and you will walk a straight path, knowing what and in WHOM you believe.

Lydia: You have to look at what Mirele believes and how she and many Muslims interpret the Quran. She is quite harmless as is Mohammad. There are many more in the United States like them. Listen instead of arguing and talking so much. As for the Dearborne incident this was presented to me, I suggest this be read before passing judgment so quickly.

"You're inviting me to Christianity (aka "accept Jesus as my personal savior"), yet you're also mocking me, questioning my education and insulting my intelligence and then recommending regularly discredited sources like Robert Spencer and David Horowitz. Funny way of calling to Jesus, this. It's like the aggropreaching that David Wood, etc., engage in. Insult and belittle people and they might accept your savior. Why on earth do you think I'd want to be like you?"

The truth stands outside of any one person. the Truth of Jesus Christ as God in the Flesh is truth whether you like me or not. You seem to like Debbie a lot...why not believe in Jesus Christ because of her niceness?

"This is not the place or the time to go into a dissertation on why Christians shouldn't be throwing stones at Muslims over women's rights. Let's just say that the record is not very pretty."

Why not? You made the allegation. Now substantiate it. And I will agree with you that the HISTORY is a bloody mess. But what does that have to do with what the New Covenant teaches us?

Why not have a discussion on the History of Islam? What the Koran and Hadith say about the status of women. Or how about a discussion on the treatment of people in the dictatorships of most Islamic countries?

"I respect people like Debbie because she holds tenaciously to the central core of her beliefs--but she is not afraid to look at facts, even if they come from people who do not share her beliefs. "

Where have I disagreed with facts about Caner?

"And, to drag this more or less back on topic: In this whole Ergun Caner mess, that's been the most astonishing thing to me. It doesn't matter what the facts are, it doesn't matter that Ergun Caner misrepresented himself over the years, it's that these facts were brought out first by a Muslim and for that very reason alone must be untrue or can't be looked at."

Debbie is quoted on this blog as saying "we" broke the story. Who is "we"? Her and Mohammad Khan? So, according to Debbie, a Christian and a Muslim broke the story. Don't forget to give credit where credit is due.

I have no problem with Mohammad breaking this story. I am disappointed we did not connect the dots sooner. Caner is someone I thought was a shock jock preacher and paid little attention to. As I paid very little attention to the legalists at Liberty.

" A close runner-up is the sentiment: "Well he's bringing so many people to Christ, so it doesn't matter what he says." (Right.) If it doesn't really matter what the truth is, then we might as well have actors up in the pulpit, not ministers of the Gospel. Wait a minute...."

I do not think this at all. I think Caner hurts the cause of Christ in more ways than this one and I DO THINK HE IS AN ACTOR. he is the typical celebrity Christian so many worship and follow these days.

But then, I will say it again, the TRUTH of Jesus Christ stands outside of any one person.

Mirele, Two things, read Hebrews. (Both of you) The Bible also talks about not only a form of Godliness, but also a Body of Christ that is varied and God uses our gifts in their own way. You cannot meet here -- having different gifts and backgrounds -- and create a unified faith past the essentials.

Lydia: You have to look at what Mirele believes and how she and many Muslims interpret the Quran. She is quite harmless as is Mohammad. There are many more in the United States like them. Listen instead of arguing and talking so much. As for the Dearborne incident this was presented to me, I suggest this be read before passing judgment so quickly.

Restraining Order

June 25, 2010 12:22 PM

With all due respect, Debbie. You are the last person I would listen to. And I base that on several years of reading you and our personal email exchanges. And that fact you called one of my comments on your blog hateful, deleted it, but refused to post it here so others could judge for themselves.

Yet, you go on blogs and call people names, tell them to shut up or they are foolish, etc and then preach about "love". Sorry, cannot relate.

I think you are missing the point of my concern for the Dearborn incident. I am asking why so many so called "Moderate" Muslims were chanting "Allah Akbar" when the Christians were being arrested.

I personally do not think that sounds "harmless".

You can continue to go down the path of trashing believers who have the boldness to witness to Muslims at a public ARAB festival in the United States, I won't go there with you.

"It is better to be a live jackal than a dead lion—for jackals, not men. Men who have the moral courage to fight intelligently for freedom have the best prospects of avoiding the fate of both live jackals and dead lions. Survival is not the be-all and end-all of a life worthy of man.... Man's vocation should be the use of the arts of intelligence in behalf of human freedom. SIDNEY HOOK

The title of this second-to-last post of mine will be "Useful Idiots"

(Wiki): the term useful idiot was used to describe Soviet sympathizers in Western countries and the attitude of the Soviet government towards them. The implication was that though the person in question naïvely thought themselves an ally of the Soviets or other Communists, they were actually held in contempt by them, and were being cynically used. The term is now used more broadly to describe someone who is perceived to be manipulated by a political movement, terrorist group, hostile government, or business, whether or not the group is Communist in nature."

This is what some here are steering towards, considering Islam to be an ideology (political first, religious second). But history will bear out this claim. For clarification of thought on this, I recommend Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left.

Restraining orders and the like do not mean there was anything but pamphlets handed out. Muslims will use the law in their propagandistic favor, they still do not like or allow Muslims converting to Christianity and will try and stop it any way possible. (Taqiyya is truly practiced by Shi'ite and Sunni alike, because their founder practiced it.) France, for instance, some say will reach a majority of Muslim by 2050. The simple question is, will women's rights and freedom to evangelize gain freedom or loose freedom when the majority is Islamic? Secularism causes the freedom of witness to be restrained as well, but what we are talking about here is a second-class citizen, something these books talk about in-depth:

The Dhimmi: Jews & Christians Under Islam

Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide

The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims

Something I have noticed as well as I sit back and watch the world change, something Debbie and others have seen a bit more than myself. That Islam flourishes in the secular state. This is an ideology much like communism, that must be theologically, politically, morally, and legally challenged in the West.

For those here who do not wish to get into the nuances of the above books, here are a few recommends but want a quicker synopsis of our histories and the Muslim faith (some apologetic as well), here ya' go:

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)

The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion

Religion of Peace?: Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn't

=========

Answering Islam: The Crescent in Light of the Cross

Light in the Shadow of Jihad: The Struggle for Truth

Reasoning from the Scriptures with Muslims

These are good places to start, even if you read one book. I will apply this quote by Reagan here, and I think it may help us realign daily if applied to the real cause of change in the human heart, Christ (sort of taking out of context):

“The West will not contain communism, it will transcend communism. We will not bother to denounce it, we'll dismiss it as a sad, bizarre chapter in human history whose last pages are even now being written.”

You may substitute Christianity and Islam in their appropriate places.... for those who do not know who Sydney Hook is... [more to come]...

I. F. Stone was a lifelong leftist who used his biweekly newsletter to boost Castro, defend the Soviet Union, and condemn the United States. His biographer wrote that Stone saw "communism [as] a progressive force, lined up on the correct side of historical events." And Stone himself admitted that he was "half a Jeffersonian, half a Marxist." The Marxist usually got the better of him.When Stone died in 1989, he was hailed as the "conscience of investigative journalism" by the Los Angeles Times."

The New York Times obituary called him a "pugnacious advocate of civil liberties, peace, and truth." TV personality Larry King called Stone "a truly genuine hero." Both Anthony Lewis and Tom Wicker eulogized him in their New York Times columns, and Peter Jennings offered an on-air encomium, calling Stone "a journalist's journalist," and recommending his work: "For many people, it's a rich experience to read or re-read Stone's views on America's place in the world, on freedom, on the way government works, and sometimes corrupts."

Sidney Hook, a tireless battler for liberty and democracy and scourge of American Stalinists, died within days of Stone. But his death went unlamented by American liberals. If liberalism were truly about respect for liberty, individual rights, and democracy, then it was Hooknot Stone—who exemplified those values. Stone's motto was "pas d'enemies a gauche" (no enemies to the left), and much the same can be said of his many admirers.

This is applicable to our discussion in the concept that Islam is not religious, but an Ideology much like Communism. This is taught in the Haditha and the Qu'ran and applied to every Muslim government (Turkey soon to not be excluded from this list).

So my first order of business is not to convert the Marxist or Communist [insert here: Muslim] as much as to make sure that the West (the Judeo-Christian concept of law, freedom and the like, see recommended books) that can preach this message effectively survives to do so. Example: Islamic high-seas slave trading wasn't brought to an end by preaching, it was brought to an end by warfare -- political and militarily (see chapter three in Thomas Sowell's book Black Rednecks and White Liberals, entitled, "The Real History of Slavery"). The result? A substantial increase in the "net" freedom of mankind. Islam is an ideology that as a whole suppresses this truth and does so in the modern PC world by using our own laws against us (Western ideals). This is the fight Dearborn is in. A microcosm of the macro. I was raised in Detroit by-the-by.

(See also for some neat history: http://religiopoliticaltalk.blogspot.com/2009/01/some-islamic-history-founding-father.html)

Keep in mind the below was only made possible by the West standing up to the encroaching Islamitude (rightly or wrongly):

The Genevan Reformation and the American Founding;

The Reformation of Rights: Law, Religion and Human Rights in Early Modern Calvinism;

Religion and The American Constitutional Experiment;

Christianity and Law: An Introduction;

God's Joust, God's Justice: Law and Religion in Western Tradition;

The Teachings of Modern Christianity on Law, Politics, & Human Nature: Volume One; The Teachings of Modern Christianity on Law, Politics, & Human Nature: Volume Two;

Law and Protestantism: The Legal Teachings of the Lutheran Reformation;

Law and Revolution, The Formation of the Western Legal Tradition (v. 1); Law and Revolution, II: The Impact of the Protestant Reformations on the Western Legal Tradition (v. 2);

The Foundations of Modern Political Thought, Vol. 1: The Renaissance; The Foundations of Modern Political Thought, Vol. 2: The Age of Reformation;

"This is applicable to our discussion in the concept that Islam is not religious, but an Ideology much like Communism."

Bingo. Which is why some cannot see that the practice of this "religion"/ideology as outlined in their "holy" books is incompatible with our Constitution. We are all fooling ourselves if we cannot see this.

"So my first order of business is not to convert the Marxist or Communist [insert here: Muslim] as much as to make sure that the West (the Judeo-Christian concept of law, freedom and the like, see recommended books) that can preach this message effectively survives to do so."

Excellent point and I stand rebuked.

And a point Muslims cannot abide which is WHY they use our laws against us. Which brings me to the point that who becomes a judge in our courts is VERY important as we are seeing in the Dearborn debacle.

"Islam is an ideology that as a whole suppresses this truth and does so in the modern PC world by using our own laws against us (Western ideals). This is the fight Dearborn is in. A microcosm of the macro. I was raised in Detroit by-the-by."

And I spent summers in St Clair Shores way back when. We attended many festivals around the Detroit area back then: The Greek Festival (oompa) and the Polish Festival,to name a few. Great fun. Very public.

YES! Dearborn is microcosm of what we will see in the macro soon if we are not careful and do not wake up.

For an example of Lenin's use of Useful Idiots soon after the Revolution, I also recommend Whittaker Chambers' Witness as required reading.

The origins of Ergun Caner as an entertainer are found in these series of posts by Tom Chantry. I understand "alter calls" are lot of times emotionally laden for people to reject and some times accept. These series are worth reading at least to the why's and how's of Ergun Caner persona in the pulpit.

mirele wrote,"This is not the place or the time to go into a dissertation on why Christians shouldn't be throwing stones at Muslims over women's rights."

Why not? Explain this one; I can't understand it except as a very blatant case of unequal justice:

"A bedouin came and said, "O Allah's Apostle! Judge between us according to Allah's Laws." His opponent got up and said, "He is right. Judge between us according to Allah's Laws." The bedouin said, "My son was a laborer working for this man, and he committed illegal sexual intercourse with his wife. The people told me that my son should be stoned to death; so, in lieu of that, I paid a ransom of one hundred sheep and a slave girl to save my son. Then I asked the learned scholars who said, "Your son has to be lashed one-hundred lashes and has to be exiled for one year." The Prophet said, "No doubt I will judge between you according to Allah's Laws. The slave-girl and the sheep are to go back to you, and your son will get a hundred lashes and one year exile." He then addressed somebody, "O Unais! go to the wife of this (man) and stone her to death." So, Unais went and stoned her to death." (Hadith Sahih Bukhari Volume 3, Book 49, Number 860.)

Why does the man get away with 100 lashes but the woman gets stoned to death? Mohammed did not learn this from Jesus, who tasked only those without sin to cast the stones, nor did he learn this from Moses, who stoned both man and woman equally. It was the Muslims not the Christians who threw stones at this woman, and they did not throw stones at the man.

Liberty University announced today that it found that Caner has made “factual statements that are self-contradictory” concerning “dates, names and places of residence.“ The statements included his description of being raised as a Muslim in Turkey, when documents indicate he moved to the United States at the age of 4.Supposedly his contract was up on June 30th, and will not be renewed to be dean. But he’ll remain as faculty.

Liberty University announced today that Ergun Caner will no longer be dean of the university’s Baptist Theological Seminary.After an investigation conducted by four members of Liberty’s Board of Trustees, the university said it found that Caner has made “factual statements that are self-contradictory” concerning “dates, names and places of residence.“ The statements included his description of being raised as a Muslim in Turkey, when documents indicate he moved to the United States at the age of 4.His contract as dean of the seminary expires on June 30 and will not be renewed, according to a statement from LU.Caner will continue to serve on the seminary’s faculty, as a professor.

Lydia: I will not let you misrepresent me. How you can so misrepresent what I said is beyond me. But yet you have. You have totally twisted our email exchange and anything I have ever said. And your comment was hateful and will not see the light of day. Ever. I am sorry if you disagree with that, but my blog, my call.

I am asking questions that is all I am doing and presenting what I am presented with.

I am saying let's look at all the evidence before rushing into any judgment on this. If that is one thing I have learned from Ergun that is the main one. Not all Muslims are dangerous Lydia. We have the threat of terrorism but you seem to be labeling all Muslims as terrorist and I am going to keep pointing out that is not true.

You have a deep seated problem with all Muslims Lydia or you have a fear that just doesn't stop. But at least when you speak of us, speak of what I did actually say, which was the above and not what you want me to say to make your point. That is a dangerous person who does that and makes you no different than Ergun Caner or others that I have dealt with.

You are trying to make me into something I am not Lydia. It has been explained to you and I have not told you anything in emails that I have not told you here. How sad that you are trying to discredit me and for what reason?

I am asking questions. Questions that I think need to be asked. You also ask a good question that I would like to see answered. Just do not attempt to say that all Muslims are like this, they are not. Which is what makes those who misrepresent themselves as former Muslims and experts so dangerous. They feed into the mindset that I fear you have Lydia. Now how is that for transparency on my part.

The problem with the God of Islam is that morality is relative. Let me develop one aspect of this...How can the God of Islam be independent of his creation? Before creating any angel or human, he was alone. Remember that. He was alone. As Dr. Ravi Zacharias points out, that is not good. How could this God speak, since there was no one there for him to speak with? How could this God love, since there was no one there to love? How could this God have a relationship, since there was no one there to have a relationship with? How could this God know diversity? How could this God know community? How could this God know unity among diverse persons in a community together? How could this be eternally true: Do unto others as you would have others do unto you? He was alone, therefore ultimately, morality is relative, if he were actually God. And, he is entirely dependent on his creation to know the aforementioned realities. The Holy Trinity, of course, is independent of creation to know these realities.

When people start accusing me of having never been a Christian, when the heavy hammer of apostasy straight from Hebrews 6 came down upon my head, when some anonymous said, "It would appear you never were a 'saved' believer to start with"--that's it. I'm not going to sit around here and get thwacked over the head with Bible verses and analysis of my salvation by people who don't know me and don't know what kind of soul-searching I went through. You think I didn't have all that stuff in my head ALREADY while I was struggling with belief in Jesus? You don't think that I didn't have that hammered into me?

I am trying to stay leave this post to do other things, but I must leave these two portions of a larger whole that I wrote on woman's rights and Christianity. They are part of a larger chapter for a proposed book I have written and need help editing:

mirele: I say this with all the love inside of me for you. I do consider you a friend, so take this in the Spirit in which it is said. Salvation is not something you have one day and then lose. It's a supernatural work wrought by God. It's a supernatural change of the heart. What is in our head as we read and hear the Bible penetrates into our heart. It supernaturally changes and this continues until the day we enter heaven either at death or when Christ returns for us. We are continually being changed. Ephesians 2:8&9: 8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast.

It is a gift from God. Because it is from God it can never change, never be taken away. Never leave us nor can we be truly born again and just decide to forsake it. For a time maybe....but we will always come back to our First Love who is Jesus Christ. That is what his work did for us on the cross.

I love you regardless of where you are now,I just can't let you believe that what you experienced was true born again salvation. I don't believe it was. I do pray that you read this with the love I have for you and where you are now. I pray that you experience true born again salvation that is without end.

Fredrika: Mirele has a good point. Christians are the last ones as a whole who should tell Muslims how to treat women. We are no better. We women are now speaking out as are some good Biblical preacher, teachers, men, but we are not near God's plan for women as taught in scripture and mirele knows that. She is absolutely right. Not a good argument to use in my opinion. We are still in the 1950's and worse on that one.

I love you regardless of where you are now,I just can't let you believe that what you experienced was true born again salvation. I don't believe it was. I do pray that you read this with the love I have for you and where you are now. I pray that you experience true born again salvation that is without end.

I'm sorry you see it that way. But what you're saying here is a Catch-22: If I had a true saving belief in Jesus, I would have never left Christianity; therefore, I never had a true saving belief in Jesus. Thus, when someone tells me that I didn't know true born again salvation, I know there is nothing that I can say that can convince them otherwise, because you can't accept that someone would voluntarily leave so a great salvation.

I can tell you this, though: I accepted Jesus as my Lord and Savior when I was 15 years old. I confessed Jesus was Lord with my tongue and believed that he had been raised from the dead (Rom. 10:9, Acts 16:9). I confirmed that belief and confession over and over again. I was profoundly grateful, over and over again, that Jesus died for my sins and the sins of the world and was resurrected. In this, I was the recipient of God's grace (unmerited favor).

However, over the decades of study, reading and pondering, I'd come across troubling aspects of the faith that loomed ever larger as the years went by. You mentioned one: the treatment of women. Pretty much all of the god-language in Christianity is explicitly male, in large part because the human male savior is also the son of God and God himself. As a woman, that became increasingly difficult to bear.

Then there was the belief that God required a blood sacrifice of his son to forgive our sins. I knew it was possible for Jesus to simply forgive people's sins as he did when he healed the paralytic (Mark 2:1-12). (In fact, I believed fervently that Jesus' demonstration of healing here confirmed his ability to forgive all sin, including all of my sins.) Particularly in light of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, it began to make less and less sense as to why God needed a sacrifice of himself to himself to forgive our sins. He could just forgive us, couldn't he? I can't even begin to tell you the number of tears I cried when it stopped making sense. I wanted to believe that Jesus' blood covered my sins, but I found I could not anymore.

The final blow was a realization that just made me sick inside. I realized I'd been worshipping another human being, another creation, as God, for decades. I'd made Jesus into an idol of the living God, just as surely as if I had carved him out of a piece of wood and set him up on an altar for worship (Isaiah 44:19). I was horrified. That was the end for me.

If all of that means I was never a believer in your eyes, well, then, there's nothing more I can say, now is there?

"You have a deep seated problem with all Muslims Lydia or you have a fear that just doesn't stop."

Debbie, this is why it is just fruitless to discuss anything with you. You cannot reason the most basic of topics. I have explained it over and over but you cannot grasp it. The point has always been that the endgame of Islam is NOT peace but conversion...even if that means forced conversion...violence. Read the Koran. It starts out as peaceful but when converts were not forthcoming Mohammad turned to violence and affirms violent conversions or death.

It is there in their own holy books. What amazes me is that more Muslims are not violent! As bin Laden said, more Muslims need to know the Koran and do their duty.

Papa made a good point about percentages. If there are 1 bllion Muslims and only 1% are devout, that is a huge number who want to kill infidels.

There is so much more to this but you cannot grasp it. Such as their beliefs as taught in their holy books cannot peacefully coexist with our constitution if they are truly devout. You cannot seem to grasp this.

Fredrika: Mirele has a good point. Christians are the last ones as a whole who should tell Muslims how to treat women."

This is absurd and ridiculous. We are a nation of laws and women in this country, Christian or not, have civil recourse against abuse. The abuser can go to prison if convicted. the victim gets a trial, Debbie. Can you say that happens in Islamic country's for victims?

Muslim women in Islamic country's do not have ANY protection or even recourse. And there are even honor killings for being "too Western".

My cousin brought home secret film footage she took from the back of a Range Rover while being driven through a large city of a Muslim country of women being beaten with sticks in public because their ankles showed while walking! No one could do anything for them. They are owned. Chattel. Like herding cattle. In this film footage the man was hitting 4 women.

That is just one exmaple of many. (Many women are deprived medical care unless there is a women doctor)

Do you REALLY want to say that we are the last ones to be able to tell Muslims how to treat women?

Where did our laws protecting women come from? Yes, they came late BUT THEY CAME. And this is because what we said we valued from day one was not there. Same with slavery. We changed it.

Someday you might want to read up on what has happened to many Filipino women in countries like Saudia Arabia.

There is a huge difference between comps preaching marriage to a daddy figure in charge and honor killings,for crying out loud. We really need to get some perspective.

Comps cannot force compliance because of our civil laws.

Now, do we really want to be tolerant of Muslims practicing Sharia in their communities here?

That would go against our own Bill of Rights for equal protection in the law. I will never be tolerant of that treatment of Muslim women in this country and I hope others won't either.

This is why I hope folks will start to see that "Freedom of Religion" for Muslims would lead to gutting our own Constitution for a select group.

You cannot grasp that it is ALREADY happening on a micro level right now because you do not want to offend your Muslim friends who have used you quite well.

Again, I remind you Muslims lived in my home for years since I was 12. I have not come to this conclusion because I have a few Muslim internet friends.

And quite contrary to what you try to make folks believe I love them very much. I just understand them better than you do. We do not have to give up any rights to lead them to Christ. As a matter of fact, doing that will get you the OPPOSITE. They have been indoctrinated very young in shame/honor thinking.

So, you can keep spouting that I hate Muslims because it is all you know how to say to anyone who disagrees with you.

I love you regardless of where you are now,I just can't let you believe that what you experienced was true born again salvation. I don't believe it was. I do pray that you read this with the love I have for you and where you are now. I pray that you experience true born again salvation that is without end.

I'm sorry you see it that way. But what you're saying here is a Catch-22: If I had a true saving belief in Jesus, I would have never left Chrisianity; therefore, I never had a true saving belief in Jesus. Thus, when someone tells me that I didn't know true born again salvation, I know there is nothing that I can say that can convince them otherwise, because you can't accept that someone would voluntarily leave so a great salvation.

I can tell you this, though: I accepted Jesus as my Lord and Savior when I was 15 years old. I confessed Jesus was Lord with my tongue and believed that he had been raised from the dead (Rom. 10:9, Acts 16:9). I confirmed that belief and confession over and over again. I was profoundly grateful, over and over again, that Jesus died for my sins and the sins of the world and was resurrected. In this, I was the recipient of God's grace (unmerited favor).

However, over the decades of study, reading and pondering, I'd come across troubling aspects of the faith that loomed ever larger as the years went by. You mentioned one: the treatment of women. Pretty much all of the god-language in Christianity is explicitly male, in large part because the human male savior is also the son of God and God himself. As a woman, that became increasingly difficult to bear.

Then there was the belief that God required a blood sacrifice of his son to forgive our sins. I knew it was possible for Jesus to simply forgive people's sins as he did when he healed the paralytic (Mark 2:1-12). (In fact, I believed fervently that Jesus' demonstration of healing here confirmed his ability to forgive all sin, including all of my sins.) Particularly in light of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, it began to make less and less sense as to why God needed a sacrifice of himself to himself to forgive our sins. He could just forgive us, couldn't he? I can't even begin to tell you the number of tears I cried when it stopped making sense. I wanted to believe that Jesus' blood covered my sins, but I found I could not anymore.

The final blow was a realization that just made me sick inside. I realized I'd been worshipping another human being, another creation, as God, for decades. I'd made Jesus into an idol of the living God, just as surely as if I had carved him out of a piece of wood and set him up on an altar for worship (Isaiah 44:19). I was horrified. That was the end for me.

If all of that means I was never a believer in your eyes, well, then, there's nothing more I can say, now is there?

the conservative estimate is that 10% (ten-percent) of the Muslims are radical, that means 100-million are radical Jihadies.

However, I posit that even in the vaunted "moderate mosques" you find radicalism, why? Because they follow Muhammad, who himself was radical. So the issue isn't that we have an unhealthy fear of Muslims, rather, a healthy fear of Muslims that follow the teachings of Muhammad. (As do moderate Muslims, as we shall see.)

So, for instance, a jewel of a moderate Islamic mosque in Europe fails the test of an undercover investigation. Even after this undercover report (also included in the link), they went back a year later and guess what... still not moderate.

So what "Son of Hamas" and others say is that there is no moderate Islam. I would agree. The truly patriotic and reformational minded Muslims are few and far between. Moderate Muslim's themselves are in fear for their lives from the many (remember, I say there is more than 10%) radicals:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWPvuAg4HjI

The main difference between conservative Christians and Muslims is this: The conservative Muslim thinks that the Qu'ran is prescriptive in its whole. The Christian (and Jew) believe the Old Testament in its history is descriptive, not prescriptive. Which is why the orthodox Jew and the conservative Christian do not follow the many historical edicts from Hebraic history. They've reformed. The Muslim want the Muhammadan view of the Qu'ran, i.e., Sharia.

Again, here is "Son of Hamas" speaking to this issue in his own words:

If there are truly moderate Muslims out there, they live in more fear than I do... which says what about their faith?

Are they in fear over fundamentalism from within Islam, or are they in fear of Muhammadism [Muhammad's teachings in the Qu'ran or the Haditha] itself?

Another way to view this is asking if the "protesters" were in fear of Roman Catholicism or of Jesus' teachings [his teachings as found in the New Testament]. Ouch. Makes you really focus in on what Islam is exactly... it isn't peace.

"So the issue isn't that we have an unhealthy fear of Muslims, rather, a healthy fear of Muslims that follow the teachings of Muhammad."

I agree. How soon we forget that most of the Terrorist who flew the planes came from "moderate" Muslim families in the East and became radical while living in WESTERN society...such as Germany...a democratic society.

Thanks for the correction but I was using the 1% to make a point about what 1% of a billion looks like. I was not clear. It is a HUGE number. But 10%, which is probably small, is 10x worse. And most Muslims have large families. bin Laden has 53 brothers and sisters. Whereas the Muslim refugees I am working with from war torn African country's have an average of 6 kids. All the women are required to cover.

BTW: The Muslim refugee adult women I work with are extremely backward and uneducated. Most do not even have basic math. The men are more educated. It is terribly sad. They simply see no reason to educate females beyond an elementary level.

We are fools to give one inch of freedoms of speech or individual rights to accomodate Islam in this country. It will not make them more peaceful but more bold.

As Churchill said, Appeasors can only hope the alligator will eat them last!

We must insist on our individual freedoms especially for the sake of Muslim women.

Hi mirele,You asked, "Particularly in light of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, it began to make less and less sense as to why God needed a sacrifice of himself to himself to forgive our sins. He could just forgive us, couldn't he? I can't even begin to tell you the number of tears I cried when it stopped making sense."Let's say a 46 year old man drugs and rapes a 13 year old girl. Let's say he is caught red handed. At the trial the judge says, "Well, the man has done so much good. Sir, you are guilty, but I forgive you. You are free to go." How would that sit with you, if you had a 13 year old daughter? Would you think he was a good judge? What makes the most sense to you, just punishment for criminals or instant pardon for criminals turned loose on the streets to attack us again, without any punishment? How terrible indeed would that world be? Mirele, just punishment and confinement of criminals who do things to others they would not want others to do to them is mercy for those of us who want a world where everyone loves and respects everyone else. Heaven would be hell if God 'just forgave' everyone. And He would not be a good judge if He did so. Everyone deserves hell, because we all break the golden rule. But, the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Jesus paid the Father the just punishment for our sins in our place. But there are those who will not trust Him so that the payment can be credited to their account. They do not want to be one of His sheep. They will not have Him to rule over them. “Therefore I told you that you will die in your sins. For if you do not believe that I am He you will die in your sins” (John 8:24) “Anyone who believes in Him is not condemned, but anyone who does not believe is already condemned, because he has not believed in the name of the One and Only Son of God”…”The one who believes in the Son has eternal life, but the one who refuses to believe in the Son will not see life; instead the wrath of God abides on him” (John 3:18 & 3:36).

According to Jesus Christ, the question is not whether someone will be condemned. Presently we are; we are all ‘in our sins’ and ‘already condemned’ with the ‘wrath of God abiding on us’ unless and until we have become the objects of God’s mercy by believing in ‘the name of the One and Only Son of God.’

debbiekaufman wrote: "Fredrika: Mirele has a good point. Christians are the last ones as a whole who should tell Muslims how to treat women. We are no better."

Really? On Mirele's blog she makes an issue out of that Baptist church in Concord, N.H. which humiliated a young lady who had been raped. Do you know what they do in Muslim countries to young ladies who are raped, if their claims are not believed? They don't just humiliate them; they whip them or worse. See, for example, this young lady who was raped and sentenced to 200 lashes:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/16/world/middleeast/16saudi.html

I don't know if that punishment was ever carried out. Sometimes Western embassies complain and these things get quietly dropped. This Muslim rape victim was stoned:

For the life of me I can't see how you put these two systems on the same plane. If the worst one system does to young women who are raped is humiliate them, and the other system beheads or whips them, how can you possibly say one is not better than the other? Would you rather be: a.) humiliated, b.) whipped, or c.) beheaded?

Mirele wrote:"I realized I'd been worshipping another human being, another creation, as God, for decades."

You were worshipping God incarnate, not a mere man. God is omnipotent; He does as He pleases: "But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased." (Psalm 115:3). You are saying the one thing God cannot do is become incarnate. Why on earth not? What other restrictions do you wish to put on His liberty, and how do you expect to enforce them?

Mirele: God so loved the world that He gave His only Son. No one can forgive sins but God and He was the only one who could and did. Thats why He came in the flesh as no earthly man could pay the penalty...the sin offering had to be perfect. Quit trying to rationilize forgiveness or attempt to figure out Gods love...just accept it...it is a free gift.

"You mentioned one: the treatment of women. Pretty much all of the god-language in Christianity is explicitly male, in large part because the human male savior is also the son of God and God himself. As a woman, that became increasingly difficult to bear."

Mirele,

Was it difficult to bear that your "prophet", Mohammad married a 6 year old girl (one of,some think,11 wives) and consummated that marriage at 9 years old?

The Quran does not treat women well at all. I find much confusion in your comment. It makes no sense to leave Christianity because it does not treat women well but then convert to Islam which treats women horrible.

You misunderstand much. For example, there is no Greek word that describes "brother and sister" such as the English word, sibling. Therefore the translators used "brethren".

Also, the Holy Spirit, through Paul, wrote in Galatians that IN Christ there is no male nor female. Spiritually, we are human beings..both made in the Image of God. Our spiritual standing transcends gender. There is no "female Christianity".

That passage in Galatians,if we study it from the beginning,is describing the FULL inheritance of salvation. Women inherit it all. Just as men do if they are saved. Every single last bit of it. Which includes not only the promise of the indwelling Holy Spirit but even proclaiming and sharing the Word with males, contrary to what many think.

God is even described in metaphorical terms as a female in the OT.

I will admit that most Christians have gotten this wrong for centuries. That is not the fault of our Savior, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit that inspired the Words of scripture. It is the fault of translators and those who see authority over others in the Body of Christ as desirable. See, in the Word, if understood properly, there are no authorities in the Body except Jesus Christ. The rest of us are just servants to one another with differing gifts. All believers are described as Priests. That includes women.

Many folks get this wrong but that is because they either want authority or want to be led by someone other than Jesus Christ.

I am sorry you had bad teachers who taught you wrong on this score.

My guess is that you could quote scripture with the best of us. It has always been a shock to me how many unbelievers know the Word. I know a PhD in Theology who is an atheist and I long ago stopped debating him because he put me to shame.

Why? Because without the Holy Spirit, the Word means nothing. I wish more Christians understood that, too.

I hope those here who want to preach the Word to you will refrain and just quietly and privately pray for you.

I am a Turkish citizen studying in the United States. I've heard about Caner several years ago. As far as know his mother was a Christian and he was raised by his mother as a Christian.

One thing really astonishes me is the demand for people that mocks other religions. I am a Muslim and I have come across with several converts to Islam. I find it always disgusting when they are talking about their previous religion badly although I didn't come up with many people that do that.

I am a Muslim not because Christianity or other religions are bad, but because I love my religion and find it very logical. You should do so too. No offense, but the need for ridiculing other religions shows the weakness of your faith not the strength.

(Curse at [you]?) At any rate, I welcome you to read the Gospels, Galatians, and Hebrews. Compare Jesus and early Christianity against Muhammad and early Islam. This question from a Muslim to a Christian apologist may be a great starting point for you:

To answer your earlier question about love offerings for big name speakers, I am mainly getting that figure from personal knowledge of such offerings from a small number of large sbc megachurches. I haven't conducted any studies or polls to determine this with any accuracy.

Let me also clarify something that I may have implied in my previous post about Ergun Caner. I certainly do not with to imply or contend that Ergun Caner intended to fraudulantely deceive any of the congregations to which he has spoken for the purpose of financial gain. The audio and video evidence has shown he deliberately made inconsistent statements about his past but I cannot speak to his motives. My point is that at a minimum he possibly owes these churches an apology for misleading them regarding his background and testimony.

It is very kind of you that you assigned me some homework. And I am really sorry that I read the Bible without getting your permission. I didn't know that I had to. Your kindness encourage me to write down the following verse from Koran;

"And the servants of the Most Merciful are those who walk upon the earth easily, and when the ignorant address them [harshly], they say [words of] peace." (Surat Al-Furqān, 25:63)

You see, unlike the Bible, the Qu'ran abrogates its "verses" and depending on what time period they were written (and depending on if the Muslim community was weaker than it was later), these later verses take over in importance (replaced with something "better") in application for the Muslim.

So, Kursat, is this Sura Meccan? More specifically, is it the fifth and sixth years of the Prophet’s Mission? There is even a period after this in Mecca. After this period was Medina, right?

For those who are not aware of this abrogation (stated in the Qu'ran) and are use to thinking of Scriptures in a "Western" manner, this Sura you gave sounds great. But if one understands the full implications of 2:106 and 16:101. Then this changes the ballgame a bit, doesn't it Kursat?

Clicker

About Me

We're small, insignificant, and harmless. But we have a loud, piercing bark that seems to annoy those in mega churches the most. Not Kool-Aid drinkers, only fresh, filtered water, please; with Grape or Cherry flavoring from Walmart. "Let him alone; God hath bidden him to speak:"